Re: SDataSet.removeRecord(SRecordInstance rinst)

I've just implemented the fix with setting null the removed record in 
dirty list.

The only thing it implies is to check if records obtained from 
SDataSet.getDirtyRecords are not null before working with them.

I also add a test in SDataSet.removeRecord to check consistence between 
dirtyRecordList from SDataset and dirtyRecordsIndex from SRecordInstance.

It seems to work better when encountering this case !



I answer about the serialization in the other thread.

[email protected] a écrit :
>
> Hello Damien,
>
> Yes, I think that you have found a bug.
>
> It will only arise in practice if you actually call removeRecord. 
> Normal operations such as Flush and Delete do not remove the records 
> from the dirty list, and so will not trigger the bug.
>
> For now please just null the entry in dirtyRecords. Do not try to 
> update the updateListIndex references. That is because Flush and 
> Delete just null the entry, and the behavior should be consistent.
>
> (If ever you did want to actually dirtyRecords.remove the entry then 
> it should be done consistently everywhere. That is a substantial job, 
> and I think that the benefit, if any, would be minimal.)
>
> Please also rename updateListIndex to dirtyRecordsIndex to be 
> consistent. (dirtyRecords used to be called updateList.)
>
> But first please also look at the exception that you received when you 
> found the error. It should have been a clear, fail fast message about 
> inconsistent data structures. If not, we may need another test. Also 
> please add a failing test case before fixing the bug.
>
> Finally, please do try commenting out "implements Serializable" from 
> SRecordMeta and SFieldMeta. If it does not break your application then 
> we will remove them for good. I was always suspicious about them, and 
> now I am pretty sure they are plain wrong.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anthony
>
> At 08:27 PM 16/02/2009, you wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >I just find a bug in the method removeRecord from the SDataSet object.
> >It seems that each SRecordInstance in the dataset have a updateListIndex
> >attribute. This attribute is used to quickly find the index in the dirty
> >record list from a dataset. When removeRecord is used, the dirty record
> >list shifts all elements from the deleted one to the end of the list, so
> >that the deleted record is removed ! All the record updateListIndex from
> >this point are no longer correct. They bind their old position in the
> >list, not the new.
> >
> >I don't know which way is better to avoid the bug, substract 1 from all
> >index that have been shifted or not remove the record but set the array
> >entry to null ... ? Setting to null is quicker but may be the cause of
> >futur bugs. I could trust the unit test to validate the fix. I think
> >shifting the updateListIndex is more reliable even if it add more cpu 
> work.
> >
> >--
> >HOSTIN Damien - Equipe R&D
> >Tel:+33(0)4 63 05 95 40
> >Société Axège
> >23 rue Saint Simon
> >63000 Clermont Ferrand
> >www.axege.com
> >
> >
>
> Dr Anthony Berglas, [email protected] <mailto:anthony%40berglas.org> 
> Mobile: +61 4 4838 8874
> Just because it is possible to push twigs along the ground with ones nose
> does not necessarily mean that is the best way to collect firewood.
>
> 
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 
HOSTIN Damien - Equipe R&D
Tel:+33(0)4 63 05 95 40
Société Axège
23 rue Saint Simon
63000 Clermont Ferrand
www.axege.com




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SimpleORM/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SimpleORM/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/